Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:38:45.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2017

Edited by
Savas L. Tsohatzidis
Savas L. Tsohatzidis
Affiliation:
Aristotle University, Thessaloniki
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Interpreting J. L. Austin
Critical Essays
 , pp. 223 - 234
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, W. P. (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Annis, D. B. (1978). “A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification.” American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 213–219.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1959). An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Atherton, M. (1990). Berkeley’s Revolution in Vision. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1946). “Other Minds.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 20: 148–187.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1950). “Truth.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 24: 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1957). “A Plea for Excuses.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57: 1–30.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1958). “Pretending.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 32: 261–278.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. Reconstructed from the Manuscript Notes by G. J. Warnock. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1963). “Performative-Constative,” tr. G. J. Warnock. In C. E. Caton (ed.), Philosophy and Ordinary Language, pp. 22–33. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. (Originally published as “Performatif-Constatif” in Cahiers de Royaumont, Philosophie No. IV, La Philosophie Analytique, Paris: Minuit, 1962.)Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1966). “Three Ways of Spilling Ink.” The Philosophical Review 75: 427–440.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1970). “Intelligent Behaviour: A Critical Review of The Concept of Mind.” In Wood, O. P. and Pitcher, G. (eds.), Ryle: A Collection of Critical Essays, pp. 45–51. New York: Doubleday. (Originally published in The Times Literary Supplement, April 7, 1950.)Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn., ed. by J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisà. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1st edn., 1962.)Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1979). Philosophical Papers, 3rd edn., ed. by Urmson, J. O. and Warnock, G. J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1st edn., 1961.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayer, A. J. (1940). The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ayer, A. J. (1967). “Has Austin Refuted the Sense-Datum Theory?” Synthese 17: 117–140.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1975). “Performatives Are Statements Too.” Philosophical Studies 28: 229–236.Google Scholar
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J. (1987). The Liar: An Essay on Truth and Circularity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, N. (2015). How to Do Things with Pornography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baz, A. (2012). When Words Are Called For: A Defense of Ordinary Language Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beardsley, M. C. (1962). “The Metaphorical Twist.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 22: 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkeley, G. (1948–1957). The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, ed. by Luce, A. A. and Jessop, T. E.. Vols. 1–9. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2002). “Illocutionary Silencing.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. (2014). “A Relevant Alternatives Solution to the Bootstrapping and Self-Knowledge Problems.” The Journal of Philosophy 111: 379–393.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrne, A. and Logue, H. (eds.) (2009). Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2007). Language Turned on Itself: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metalinguistic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. (1978). “On the Source of Interrogative Adverbs.” Language 54: 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavell, S. (1969). Must We Mean What We Say? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cavell, S. (1979). The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cavell, S. (1984). Themes Out of School: Effects and Causes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cavell, S. (1994). A Pitch of Philosophy: Autobiographical Exercises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cavell, S. (1997). Contesting Tears: The Hollywood Melodrama of the Unknown Woman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chaucer, G. (2008). Troilus and Criseyde, ed. by Benson, L. D.. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1966). Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1969). “Austin’s Philosophical Papers.” In Fann, K. T. (ed.), Symposium on J. L. Austin, pp. 101–106. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2004). “Pragmatics of Language Performance.” In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 365–382. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Carlson, T. B. (1982). “Speech Acts and Hearers’ Beliefs.” In Smith, N. V. (ed.), Mutual Knowledge, pp. 1–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Gerrig, R. (1990). “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language 66: 764–805.Google Scholar
Clarke, T. (1972). “The Legacy of Skepticism.” The Journal of Philosophy 69: 754–769.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1986). “Knowledge and Context.” The Journal of Philosophy 83: 574–585.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1988). “How to Be a Fallibilist.” Philosophical Perspectives 2: 581–605.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. (1939). An Autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cook Wilson, J. (1926). Statement and Inference, ed. by Farquharson, A. S. L.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Crane, T. and French, C. (2015). “The Problem of Perception.” In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2015 Edition. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Crary, A. (2007). Beyond Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). “The Logical Form of Action Sentences.” In Rescher, N. (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, pp. 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1969). “On Saying That.” Synthese 19: 130–146.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1979). “Quotation.” Theory and Decision 11: 27–40.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (2009). The Case for Contextualism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dickerson, A. B. (2006). “A Reasonable Contextualism (or, Austin Reprised).” In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Aspects of Knowing: Epistemological Essays, pp. 115–131. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dodd, D. (2010). “Confusion about Concessive Knowledge Attributions.” Synthese 172: 381–396.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. and Rysiew, P. (2009). “Fallibilism, Epistemic Possibility, and Concessive Knowledge Attributions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78: 123–132.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1970). “Epistemic Operators.” The Journal of Philosophy 67: 1007–1023.Google Scholar
Eddington, A. (1928). The Nature of the Physical World. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R. (2007). Asking Questions: Using Meaningful Structures to Imply Ignorance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, R. (to appear). As We Commonly Say.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2017). “Truthmaker Semantics.” In B. Hale, C. Wright and A. Miller (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, 2nd edn, pp. 556–577. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, E. (2011). Philosophical Delusion and Its Therapy: Outline of a Philosophical Revolution. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forguson, L. W. (1973). “Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts.” In Berlin, I. et al., Essays on J. L. Austin, pp. 160–185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrifft (selections). In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Frege Reader, pp. 47–78. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1880/81). “Boole’s Logical Calculus and the Concept-Script.” In Frege, G., Posthumous Writings, ed. by Hermes, H., Kambartel, F., and Kaulbach, F., pp. 9–46. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1891). “Function and Concept.” In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Frege Reader, pp. 130–148. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). “On Sense and Reference.” In Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, pp. 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell, 1960.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, I (selections). In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Frege Reader, pp. 194–223. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1918). “Thought.” In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Frege Reader, pp. 325–345. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1967). The Basic Laws of Arithmetic: Exposition of the System, ed. and tr. by Furth, M.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garvey, B. (ed.) (2014). J. L. Austin on Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gaynesford, M. de (2009a). “Illocutionary Acts, Subordination and Silencing.” Analysis 69: 488–490.Google Scholar
Gaynesford, M. (2009b). “Incense and Insensibility: Austin on the ‘Non-Seriousness’ of Poetry.” Ratio 22: 464–485.Google Scholar
Gaynesford, M. (2011a). “Speech, Action and Uptake.” In Gaynesford, M. de (ed.), Agents and Their Actions, pp. 121–137. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gaynesford, M. (2011b). “How Not to Do Things with Words.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 51: 31–49.Google Scholar
Gaynesford, M. (2013). “Speech Acts, Responsibility and Commitment in Poetry.” In Robinson, P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary British and Irish Poetry, pp. 617–637. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaynesford, M. (2017). The Rift in the Lute: Attuning Poetry and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. (1972). “Quotation and Quantification.” In Geach, P., Logic Matters, pp. 205–209. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. and Cooper, R. (2014). “Quotation via Dialogical Interaction.” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 23: 287–311.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. (2016). “Integrated Parentheticals in Quotations and Free Indirect Discourse.” In Capone, A., F. Kiefer and F. Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies, pp. 471–488. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1952). “On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure.” Psychiatry 15: 451–463.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). “Felicity’s Condition.” American Journal of Sociology 89: 1–53.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1970). A Theory of Human Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1976). “Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy 73: 771–791.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel Structures in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, K. (1977). J. L. Austin: A Critique of Ordinary Language Philosophy. Hassocks: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Green, M. (2015). “Speech Acts.” In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2015 Edition. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2015). “The Light Verbs Say and Say.” In Toivonen, I., P. Csúri and E. van der Zee (eds.), Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music, and Cognition in Honor of Ray Jackendoff, pp. 79–100. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (Ms). “Quotes, Clausal Complements, and Parentheticals.” Manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, M. (2011). “Introduction.” In Gustafsson, M. and Sørli, R. (eds.), The Philosophy of J. L. Austin, pp. 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, M. and Sørli, R. (eds.) (2011). The Philosophy of J. L. Austin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, tr. T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Haddock, A. and Macpherson, F. (eds.) (2011). Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. W. (2015). Propositional Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1949). “The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 49: 171–194.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G. and Epstein, W. (1979). “The Sensory Core and Medieval Foundations of Early Modern Perceptual Theory.” Isis 70: 363–384.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, H. (1950). Treatise on Physiological Optics, ed. by Southall, J.. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (1999). “Knowing Failably.” The Journal of Philosophy 96: 565–587.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2001). Good Knowledge, Bad Knowledge: On Two Dogmas of Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2002). “Fallibilism and Knowing that One Is Not Dreaming.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32: 83–102.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2011a). How to Know: A Practicalist Conception of Knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2011b). “Knowledge and Knowing: Ability and Manifestation.” In Tolksdorf, S. (ed.), Conceptions of Knowledge, pp. 73–100. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2013a). “Concessive Knowledge-Attributions: Fallibilism and Gradualism.” Synthese 190: 2835–2851.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2013b). “Skeptical Challenges and Knowing Actions.” Philosophical Issues 23: 18–39.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2016a). Knowledge and the Gettier Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, S. (2016b). “Understanding Fallible Warrant and Fallible Knowledge: Three Proposals.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97: 270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, S. (forthcoming). “Skepticism and Fallibilism.” In Machuca, D. and Reed, B. (eds.), Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hill, G. (1998). The Triumph of Love. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Hinton, J. M. (1989). “Scepticism: Philosophical and Everyday.” Philosophy 64: 219–243.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. (1994). “Illocution and its Significance.” In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, pp. 187–207. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. (2006). “Speech Acts and Performatives.” In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, pp. 893–909. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ingarden, R. (1931). Das Literarische Kunstwerk. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jacobson, D. (1995). “Freedom of Speech Acts? A Response to Langton.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 24: 64–79.Google Scholar
Jubien, M. (2001). “Propositions and the Objects of Thought.” Philosophical Studies 104: 47–62.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989a). “Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives an Other Indexicals.” In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, pp. 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989b). “Afterthoughts.” In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, pp. 565–614. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, M. (2000). “To What Must an Epistemology Be True?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, M. (2006). “If You Know, You Can’t Be Wrong.” In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, pp. 180–198. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, M. (2011). “Tales of the Unknown: Austin and the Argument from Ignorance.” In Gustafsson, M. and Sørli, R. (eds.), The Philosophy of J. L. Austin, pp. 51–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. and Postal, P. M. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2014). “Situations in Natural Language Semantics.” In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2014 Edition. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kukla, R. and Lance, M. (2009). Yo! And Lo! The Pragmatic Topography of the Space of Reasons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, R. (2009). Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laugier, S. (2005). “Austin after Cavell.” In Goodman, R. B. (ed.), Contending with Stanley Cavell, pp. 82–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laugier, S. (2009a). “Transcendentalism and the Ordinary.” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 1: 1–17.Google Scholar
Laugier, S. (2009b). Wittgenstein: Les sens de l’usage. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Laugier, S. (2013). Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laugier, S. and Al-Saleh, C. (eds.) (2011). J. L. Austin et la philosophie du langage ordinaire. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Lawlor, K. (2013). Assurance: An Austinian View of Knowledge and Knowledge Claims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawlor, K. (2015). “Précis of Assurance.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90: 194–204.Google Scholar
Leite, A. (2011). “Austin, Dreams, and Scepticism.” In Gustafsson, M. and Sørli, R. (eds.), The Philosophy of J. L. Austin, pp. 78–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemmon, E. J. (1962). “On Sentences Verifiable by their Use.” Analysis 22: 86–89.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1996). “Elusive Knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549–567.Google Scholar
Locatelli, R. (2014). “Sense and Sensibilia and the Significance of Linguistic Phenomenology.” In Garvey, B. (ed.), J. L. Austin on Language, pp. 141–157. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Macpherson, F. and Platchias, D. (eds.) (2013). Hallucination: Philosophy and Psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. (2017). What Philosophers Do? Skepticism and the Practice of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maier, E. (2014a). “Pure Quotation.” Philosophy Compass 9: 615–630.Google Scholar
Maier, E. (2014b). ‘Mixed Quotation: The Grammar of Apparently Transparent Opacity.” Semantics & Pragmatics 7: 1–67.Google Scholar
Maitra, I. (2009). “Silencing Speech.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39: 309–338.Google Scholar
Maitra, I. (2012). “Subordinating Speech.” In Maitra, I. and McGowan, M. K. (eds.), Speech and Harm: Controversies over Free Speech, pp. 95–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marion, M. (2000a). “Oxford Realism: Knowledge and Perception I.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8: 299–338.Google Scholar
Marion, M. (2000b). “Oxford Realism: Knowledge and Perception II.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8: 485–519.Google Scholar
Martin, M. G. F. (2007). “Austin: Sense and Sensibilia Revisited.” London Philosophy Papers, School of Advanced Study, University of London. http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/id/eprint/631.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. (2008). “On the Linguistic Complexity of Proper Names.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 573–627.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1982). “Criteria, Defeasibility, and Knowledge.” Proceedings of the British Academy 68: 455–479.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1994a). “Knowledge by Hearsay.” In Malital, B. K. and Chakrabarti, A. (eds.), Knowing from Words, pp. 195–224. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1994b). “The Content of Perceptual Experience.” The Philosophical Quarterly 44: 190–205.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1998). Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mikkola, M (2008). “Contexts and Pornography.” Analysis 68: 316–320.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1998). “Proper Function and Convention in Speech Acts.” In Hahn, L. E. (ed.), The Philosophy of P. F. Strawson, pp. 25–43. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (1992). Coordination and Comparatives. PhD Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2003). “Nominalizing Quantifiers.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 445–481.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013). Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2014). “Propositions, Attitudinal Objects, and the Distinction between Actions and Products.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43: 679–701.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2015a). “Truth Predicates in Natural Language.” In Achourioti, T, H. Galinon, J. Martínez Fernández and K. Fujimoto (eds.) Unifying the Philosophy of Truth, pp. 57–83. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2015b). “A Predicativist Semantics of Modals Based on Modal Objects.” In Brochagen, T., Roloefson, F., and Theiler, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 296–302. Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2017a). “Partial Content and Expressions of Part and Whole.” Philosophical Studies 174: 797–808.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2017b). “Cognitive Products and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs and Deontic Modals.” In Moltmann, F. and Textor, M. (eds.), Act-Based Conceptions of Propositional Content: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives, pp. 254–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1905–1906). “The Nature and Reality of Objects of Perception.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 6: 68–127.Google Scholar
Munro, P. (1982). “On the Transitivity of the ‘Say’ Verbs.” Syntax and Semantics 15: 301–318.Google Scholar
Neale, S. (2001). Facing Facts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Owens, D. (2012). Shaping the Normative Landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pagin, P. and Westerståhl, D. (2010). “Pure Quotation and General Compositionality.” Linguistics and Philosophy 33: 381–415.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2007). “The Dimensions of Quotation.” In Barker, C. and Jacobson, P. (eds.), Direct Compositionality, pp. 405–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, H. H. (1932). Perception. London: Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
Prichard, H. A. (1919). “Professor John Cook Wilson.” Mind 28: 297–318.Google Scholar
Prichard, H. A. (1950). Knowledge and Perception: Essays and Lectures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Prichard, H. A. (1968). Moral Obligation and Duty and Interest: Essays and Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prichard, H. A. (2002). Moral Writings, ed. by MacAdam, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2012). Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1994). “Sense, Nonsense, and the Senses: An Inquiry into the Powers of the Human Mind.” The Journal of Philosophy 91: 445–517.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1999). The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body, and World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1978). La transparence et l’énonciation. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1980). Les énoncés performatifs. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1991). “Postface: Du positivisme logique à la philosophie du langage ordinaire.” In Austin, J. L., Quand dire, c’est faire, tr. G. Lane, pp. 185–203. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Reimer, M. (2006). “The Metaphor of Correspondence.” ProtoSociology 23: 93–110.Google Scholar
Reimer, M. and Camp, E. (2006). “Metaphor.” In Lepore, E. and Smith, B. C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, pp. 845–863. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinach, A. (1913). “Die Apriorischen Grundlagen Des Bürgerlichen Rechtes.” Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung 1: 685–847.Google Scholar
Reinach, A. (1983). “The A Priori Foundations of Civil Law,” tr. J. F. Crosby, Aletheia 3: 1–142. Originally published as Reinach 1913.Google Scholar
Rickless, S. (2013). Berkeley’s Argument for Idealism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Robinson, H. (1994). Perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1970). “On Declarative Sentences.” In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, pp. 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1945). “Knowing How and Knowing That.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46, 1–16.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Saka, P. (1998). “Quotation and the Use-Mention Distinction.” Mind 107: 113–135.Google Scholar
Saul, J. (2006). “Pornography, Speech Acts, and Context.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106: 229–248.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (1994). Vision: Variations on Some Berkeleian Themes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (2004a). “To Austin or Not to Austin: That’s the Disjunction.” Philosophical Studies 120: 255–263.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (ed.) (2004b). Perception. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (2006). Visual Versions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (2012). “The Illusion of Visual Illusions.” In Calabi, C. (ed.), Perceptual Illusions, pp. 25–43. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (2016). “Perceptual Veridicality.” Philosophical Topics 44: 381–403.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (to appear). “Berkeleian Instrumentalism: From Substance to Space.” In L. Berchielli (ed.), Empiricist Theories of Space. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1968). “Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts.” The Philosophical Review 77: 405–424.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1989). “How Performatives Work.” Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 535–558.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1998a). “Truth: A Reconsideration of Strawson’s Views.” In Hahn, L. E. (ed.), The Philosophy of P. F. Strawson, pp. 385–401. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1998b). Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2014). “Recollections of J. L. Austin.” In Garvey, B. (ed.), J. L. Austin on Language, pp. 1–10. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2015). Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, W. (2002). The Oxford Shakespeare: Complete Sonnets and Poems, ed. by Burrow, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snowdon, P. (2003). “Knowing How and Knowing That: A Distinction Reconsidered.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104: 1–29.Google Scholar
Snowdon, P. (2014). “Austin on the Philosophy of Perception.” In Garvey, B. (ed.), J. L. Austin on Language, pp. 161–175. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (2003). Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, Volume 2: The Age of Meaning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (2010). What Is Meaning? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soteriou, M. (2014). “The Disjunctive Theory of Perception.” In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2014 Edition. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Soteriou, M. (2016). Disjunctivism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). “Fallibilism and Concessive Knowledge Attributions.” Analysis 65: 126–131.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1950). “Truth.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 24: 129–156.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). “Intention and Convention in Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 73: 439–460.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1998). “Reply to Ruth Garrett Millikan.” In Hahn, L. E. (ed.), The Philosophy of P. F. Strawson, pp. 44–48. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. (1984). The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thau, M. (2004). “What Is Disjunctivism?” Philosophical Studies 120: 193–253.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (1981). The True and the False: The Domain of the Pragmatic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2001). Unshadowed Thought: Representation in Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2004). “The Silence of the Senses.” Mind 113: 57–94.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2005). “A Sense of Occasion.” The Philosophical Quarterly 55: 286–314.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2008). Occasion-Sensitivity: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2013). “As a Matter of Fact.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Virtual Issue 1: 42–51.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2015). Review of Searle 2015. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, July 6, 2015.Google Scholar
Travis, C. and Kalderon, M. E. (2013). “Oxford Realism.” In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy, pp. 489–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Twardowski, K. (1912). “Actions and Products: Some Remarks on the Borderline of Psychology, Grammar, and Logic.” In Twardowski, K., On Actions, Products, and Other Topics in Philosophy, ed. by Brandl, J. and Woleński, J., pp. 103–132. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999.Google Scholar
Ulrich, W. (1976). “An Alleged Ambiguity in the Nominalizations of Illocutionary Verbs.” Philosophica 18: 113–127.Google Scholar
Urmson, J. O., Quine, W. V. O., and Hampshire, S. (1969). “A Symposium on Austin’s Method.” In Fann, K. T. (ed.), Symposium on J. L. Austin, pp. 76–97. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de (2008). “The Representation of Language within Language: A Syntactico-Pragmatic Typology of Direct Speech.” Studia Linguistica 62: 39–77.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warnock, G. J. (1953). Berkeley. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Warnock, G. J. (1989). J. L. Austin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Washington, C. (1992). “The Identity Theory of Quotation.” The Journal of Philosophy 89: 582–605.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (1978). Descartes: The Project of Pure Inquiry. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (2001). Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (1985). “Facts and Certainty.” Proceedings of the British Academy 71: 429–472.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki
  • Book: Interpreting J. L. Austin
  • Online publication: 04 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316421840.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki
  • Book: Interpreting J. L. Austin
  • Online publication: 04 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316421840.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki
  • Book: Interpreting J. L. Austin
  • Online publication: 04 November 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316421840.012
Available formats
×